Judges Deny CSX New Trial on Claims of Jury Instruction Error

CSX Transportation Inc. won’t get a new trial in a wrongful death lawsuit it lost, despite claims that a judge failed to properly deal with an errant comment made by plaintiff’s attorney during closing arguments.

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District rejected Thursday the railroad company’s request for a new trial after a jury awarded an estate administrator $770,000 in a 2019 wrongful death case of a CSX former employees, finding the trial judge didn’t give flawed instructions to the jury.

"[W]e find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the curative instruction and in the context of the case and the other instructions, there was no prejudice to CSX,” Justice Ramon Ocasio wrote for a three-justice panel. “The court took a reasonable approach” to mitigate possible errors that occurred during the trial, the justice wrote.

Joseph Sanders, a heavy smoker, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2016 and died from the cancer in 2018. His estate sued CSX under the Federal Employers Liability Act, claiming Sanders was exposed to various carcinogens on the job. CSX had a duty to provide Sanders with a reasonably safe place to work and failed to do so, the complaint alleged. The jury awarded the estate $2.2 million but reduced the amount by 65%, concluding Sanders contributed to his death by smoking.

At trial, the estate’s lawyer complained about the presence of Jason Pritchard — a former CSX employee who testified at the trial — at CSX’s counsel table during the testimony of another witness because a pre-trial stipulation prohibited all witnesses from appearing in the courtroom unless they were testifying. CSX said Pritchard’s presence presented no problem because he was a company representative and objected to the judge issuing a jury instruction about Pritchard’s courtroom presence.

Then, the estate’s lawyer misstated which law was being alleged against CSX during closing arguments when discussing several different worker safety statutes.

CSX filed a motion for new trial because it claimed the court erred when it provided the jury with the instruction about Pritchard and the the judge’s handling of the estate’s lawyer misstatement during closing arguments.

The appellate court said the two incidents didn’t deprive CSX of a fair trial.

“After observing both witnesses during their testimony, the presence of Pritchard at counsel table, and his interactions with CSX’s counsel, the trial court was in the best position to assess any harm from Pritchard being present in the courtroom,” Ocasio wrote. “In light of the purpose of excluding witnesses during proceedings, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the curative instruction and in the context of the case and the other instructions, there was no prejudice to CSX.” Ocasio wrote.

The case is Sanders v. CSX Transportation Inc., Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-23-0481, 4/18/24.